In a thoughtful and insightful Q&A with Lorne Michael Cousins, Senior Fellow at The Conference Board’s China Center and Program Director for its China Sustainability Leaders Council, he shares his perspective on the evolving role of sustainability in multinational companies, the practical challenges of translating ESG commitments into action, and the potential of tools like the Future-Fit Business Benchmark to drive systemic change. 

Drawing on over 25 years of experience as an environmental auditor and consultant, Lorne highlights the critical importance of data, leadership culture, and long-term thinking in embedding sustainability meaningfully into business strategies. He also reflects on the role of platforms like the Climate Technology Show in accelerating collaboration and innovation at scale.

#Shaheen: From your perspective, how have multinational companies across the globe evolved their approach to sustainability over the past decade?

#Lorne: First off, thank you so much for having me. It’s a pleasure to share my thoughts and your platform for climate technology innovation is needed now more than ever!

To answer your question, MNCs have undergone quite a transformation, I must say. A decade ago, for many multinationals, sustainability was often relegated to the realm of CSR – largely philanthropic endeavours, perhaps some ad-hoc environmental projects, and certainly a keen eye on reputational risk management. It was frequently siloed, making it a peripheral concern rather than a core strategic imperative. The focus was more on ‘doing less bad,’ often driven by compliance or the desire for a positive PR spin. Lots of glossy, 80+ page reports that didn't always translate into deep operational changes.

Now, I see a significant maturation, though the journey is far from complete. The leading MNCs have integrated sustainability far more deeply into their core business strategy. ESG factors are increasingly central to investor relations, supply chain management, product innovation, and attracting top talent. Importantly, the ‘why’ has evolved from primarily reputational to now include operational efficiency, long-term value creation, resilience against systemic risks like climate change, and a genuine understanding of their role in broader societal well-being. That’s a huge shift.

Businesses are moving from just reporting on outputs like tons of CO2 emitted to a more sophisticated understanding of impacts and dependencies along the entire value chain. Addressing crucial Scope 3 emissions remains a challenge, but that’s unsurprising considering the complexity. The rise of frameworks like the TCFD has pushed climate risk onto the CFO's agenda, treating it as a material financial risk. Concepts like the circular economy and net-zero commitments, which really were fringe ideas a decade ago, are now becoming mainstream ambitions for many global players. 

That said, there's still a significant gap between the leaders and the laggards. And, of course, the challenge of greenwashing remains a constant concern. But overall, the trajectory is positive. I’m seeing sustainability being increasingly viewed not just as a driver of innovation and competitive advantage. The conversation has moved from ‘should we do this?’ to ‘how do we do this effectively and authentically?’

#Shaheen: As a long-standing environmental auditor and consultant, what are some of the most common challenges companies face when turning sustainability commitments into measurable action?

#Lorne: This is where the rubber truly meets the road, and it’s often a bumpy ride. From my vantage point, several recurring challenges hinder progress.

First, data acquisition and management remains a persistent hurdle. To take measurable action, you need robust, reliable, and consistent data. For direct operations (encompassing Scope 1 and 2 emissions), this is becoming more manageable, though still complex for global operations. But when we get to Scope 3 emissions—those embedded in supply chains and product users—the complexity explodes. It can create a ‘deer in the headlights’ moment for businesses because many companies struggle to get accurate data from their hundreds, sometimes thousands, of suppliers. Some don’t know where to even begin with this. Without good data, setting meaningful targets and tracking progress becomes incredibly difficult. You can’t manage what you can’t measure.

Second is the ‘silo mentality’ which is something you simply can’t have when you approach sustainability from a systems view.  Sustainability commitments made at the C-suite level often fail to cascade effectively across different business units. I truly pity sustainability teams in organisations. They’re often understaffed, under-resourced and asked to accomplish the impossible. They might be highly motivated, but if procurement isn't incentivized to choose sustainable suppliers, or R&D isn't funded to explore greener product designs, or finance doesn't integrate sustainability metrics into capital allocation decisions, then progress stalls.

Next, I think another major barrier is the tyranny of short-termism. Publicly traded companies face quite a lot of pressure for quarterly financial results which clashes with many sustainability initiatives. They require upfront investment for long-term payoffs. Reconciling these different time horizons is a constant battle and it demands leadership to sign off on investments that might not show immediate returns on the traditional balance sheet, but are necessary for long-term value creation.

Then there’s the problem of translating ambition into operational reality, like we see with the setting of net-zero by x-date, say 2040. Ambition is one thing but developing a credible, cost, and actionable roadmap to achieve it is another entirely.  I think that many companies have underestimated the sheer operational complexity and the level of transformational change required. This might explain why some businesses are quietly walking back from these commitments. 

Finally, I'd point to a lack of internal capacity and expertise within businesses. Many organizations still lack the specialized knowledge within their teams to effectively implement and manage sustainability change programs. One costly approach to deal with this is to rely on external consultants for strategy, which is fine, but without building internal capability, the momentum can be lost once the consultants leave. True ownership and continuous improvement require embedding that expertise within the business and with the function. 

#Shaheen: How does the Future-Fit Business Benchmark shift the mindset of corporates from traditional ESG frameworks toward more systemic transformation?

#Lorne: The Future-Fit Business Benchmark, from my perspective, offers a transformative lens, and it’s quite distinct from many traditional ESG approaches. I’ve long said that sustainability must be embedded in peoples’ roles, not handled in a dedicated sustainability department, if one even exists. 

Traditional ESG frameworks, while valuable for transparency and comparability, often focus on relative performance – being ‘less bad’ than peers, or incrementally improving on last year's metrics. They can sometimes lead to a checklist mentality, where companies aim to score well on various indicators without necessarily addressing the fundamental unsustainability of their core business model.

Future-Fit, on the other hand, starts from a science-based definition of sustainability. It asks a profound question: What does it take for a company to operate in a way that in no way hinders, and ideally contributes to, the possibility of humanity and other life flourishing indefinitely? It establishes a ‘break-even point’ for society and the environment. This is articulated across a set of 23 Break-Even Goals that cover essential environmental and social systems. Not all goals are necessarily material to a business but what the goals do achieve are two things: a science-based destination that every business must reach just to ‘break even’, and a means to track progress along the way. 

This shifts the mindset in crucial ways. We go from relative to absolute, and that means instead of asking ‘Are we better than last year or our competitors?’, it asks ‘Are we doing enough to ensure we are not part of the problem, and ideally part of the solution, regarding critical ecological and social thresholds?’ This moves beyond incrementalism.

Importantly, it shifts the focus to taking a systems-view of how a business operates.  It forces companies to understand their impact on the system they depend upon and affect, such as climate stability, water availability, biodiversity, social equity, etc. This holistic view encourages true innovation by setting a high bar for what ‘fit for the future’ means. That pushes companies to innovate at a much deeper level, potentially rethinking business models, products, and processes to reach that break-even point and then go beyond it to create positive impacts, what Future-Fit calls ‘Positive Pursuits.

And I think lastly, it ultimately delivers long-term resilience for the business. A company that meets the Break-Even Goals is, by definition, more resilient to future shocks, regulatory changes, and shifting societal expectations because it has decoupled its success from environmental degradation and social harm.

So, while traditional ESG helps us understand current performance and risks, Future-Fit provides a north star for the destination of corporate sustainability. It compels a company to look beyond incremental improvements and ask, ‘What must we fundamentally change to ensure we can thrive in a future where all can thrive?’ It's a much more challenging, but ultimately more rewarding, perspective that truly aims for systemic transformation.

#Shaheen: What role does leadership culture play in enabling genuine sustainability progress within large organisations?

#Lorne: Leadership culture, in my view, is key. It's the bedrock upon which all genuine sustainability progress is built and without the right leadership culture, even the most well-intentioned strategies and ambitious targets will falter.

Here’s how I see it. An authentic commitment from the top is virtually non-negotiable. When the CEO and the board champion sustainability, not just as a side project but as a core element of the business's purpose and strategy, it sends a powerful signal throughout the business. It manifests as visible actions, resource allocation, and the willingness to make tough decisions that align with long-term sustainability goals, even if they present short-term challenges. Employees can tell the difference between lip service and genuine conviction.

Such a culture, though, has to encourage a long-term perspective. As I mentioned earlier, many sustainability initiatives require sustained investment and patience. Focusing on quarterly results only will inevitably de-prioritize these crucial long-term strategies. But the long-term needs an environment where it’s safe to invest in the future, even if the ROI isn't immediate in traditional financial terms.

A progressive leadership culture also empowers employees at all levels to contribute to sustainability goals through encouraging innovation via experimentation (and a level of comfort for some failures along the way).  That will require resources and training. It also demands embedding sustainability metrics into performance evaluations and incentive structures, from the executive team down.  

On a final note here, I see a strong leadership culture as driving cross-functional collaboration because sustainability is inherently interdisciplinary and touches procurement, operations, R&D, marketing, finance, HR, you name it.  If you see sustainability from a systems perspective, as I do, then you simply must break down silos if you hope to develop and implement holistic sustainability solutions.

#Shaheen: How do you see events like the Climate Technology Show contributing to global and regional sustainability momentum, and what dialogues are you hoping to spark or engage in at CTS25?

#Lorne: Climate Technology Show is a crucial catalyst for accelerating sustainability momentum, both globally and regionally. You’re showcasing innovation and bringing together the brightest minds and the latest advancements in climate technologies. It’s often the case that it’s only at these events where we can see advances in renewable energy solutions and energy storage to carbon capture, sustainable agriculture, green building materials, and circular economy models. This visibility is vital for demonstrating what's possible and inspiring action.

Crucially, they’re hubs for collaboration and networking. Tackling climate change and achieving broader sustainability goals requires unprecedented collaboration between innovators, investors, corporations, policymakers, and academia. CTS therefore provides both a physical and virtual space for these diverse actors to connect, share ideas, forge partnerships, and mobilize capital. We need more events like these because they bridge the gap between technology developers and investors.

At CTS25, I’d be particularly keen to hear dialogues that move beyond the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of climate action, which are now fairly well understood, to the ‘how’—specifically the practicalities of accelerated deployment and systemic integration. 

CTS is vital for creating a shared sense of urgency and possibility, and I look forward to seeing you and your team rack up another success!